memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Matte painting
Initial thoughts :Moved from User talk:Defiant Hey. Nice idea. Any idea what category should this article be filed under? I once thought about an article about matte paintings. Maybe a gallery would improve the article. You can also find a nice list at Syd Dutton. If you need any help, let me know. :) Tom 22:02, October 2, 2011 (UTC) :Thanks. As per usual, input from other users would be most welcome. :) --Defiant 15:31, October 3, 2011 (UTC) ::Indeed, I agree, most interesting subject to broach...Some suggestions: ::*Tight gallery format, like on Studio model ::*Subdivision per production TNG, Films TOS etc. ::*Some Literature: Cinefantastique, 104, Vol 25 #6/Vol 26 #1, pp.70-73 (article on TNG mattes)/Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 3, Issue 11 (Nemesis Rom Capital painting)--Sennim 16:56, October 3, 2011 (UTC) :There's also a documentary featurette on the VOY Season 4 DVD, I believe. --Defiant 17:47, October 3, 2011 (UTC) Right. Some of these information are on the articles of Syd Dutton, Bill Taylor, and Robert Stromberg. Tom 17:49, October 3, 2011 (UTC) :There's also The Art of Star Trek, pp. 22-23. --Defiant 17:55, October 3, 2011 (UTC) :...and Trek: The Unauthorized Story of the Movies (pp. 42-43, which is where I've taken most of the list of TOS matte paintings from). --Defiant 17:58, October 3, 2011 (UTC) :::This should probably be on the article's talk page, and we might need to look into a better category then the one on it now. - 18:35, October 3, 2011 (UTC) :Update. I'd just like to clarify that I've now moved this page, just so the previous comment might make more sense to users reading this at some point in the future. There seems like a lot of great ideas being suggested by others than myself. :) --Defiant 20:05, October 3, 2011 (UTC) ::::Another interesting link - (TOS --> TOS-R) –Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:23, October 3, 2011 (UTC) :But that site seems to frequently have quotes or claim various facts without any citations. For instance, the page linked to includes numerous quotes from Max Gabl and Michael Okuda but doesn't say, specifically, where those quotes are from; it's a site I tend not to trust, having found it to be erroneous in the past. --Defiant 13:28, October 4, 2011 (UTC) :::::Okay, let me quickly clarify this. When I wrote the article together with Bernd, I contacted Mike Okuda and Max Gabl by email and asked them for some input about the planets. The quotes are what they replied to me by email, that is why there are no citations, it's first hand information I got from the personally. I did the same when I added info about the ships newly inserted into the TOS-remastered episodes, like getting clarifications about registry numbers or names of ships. I sent Mike Okuda an email, he replied and I posted this here. It saddens me that you do not trust EAS, but that is something that need not be discussed here on this talk page. --Jörg 10:36, October 7, 2011 (UTC) :I agree – it's a personal decision. I'd like to suggest, though, that information such as the above (that the quotes were taken from emails from Okuda and Gabl) be added to the EAS page, in the interests of clarifying the situation a bit more. --Defiant 10:52, October 7, 2011 (UTC) :::::Makes sense. I guess the reason why Bernd didn't state it like that is because the article is written by "Jörg Hillebrand, Anthony Pascale and Bernd Schneider, with comments from Max Gabl and Mike Okuda" and we thought it would be clear that they were thus co-authors. Doesn't hurt to add a comment that we git the information from e-mail conversation, though. --Jörg 11:00, October 7, 2011 (UTC) ::Another source , a dedicated article pp.24-29--Sennim 16:40, October 6, 2011 (UTC) Category Do we want an existing category like Category:Art department or one like Category:Production material? Tom 20:14, October 3, 2011 (UTC) :Art department is a category for people, and should not be used for anything else. Perhaps something like Category:Star Trek special effects(or "visual effects"), which could then also be used for Studio model and other, similar articles. -- Cid Highwind 21:05, October 3, 2011 (UTC) I think matte paintings would be covered by both categories "Production material" and "visual effects", since they are both...As Defiant himself has pointed out on another page, Special, and Visual effects are two different kinds. I am not so sure about "Art department", both because they refer to people and while the paintings can be considered art by us, they were not intended as such..--Sennim 09:06, October 4, 2011 (UTC) :There's a difference between a "concept article" (this article, studio model) and one about a specific implementation of that concept (a hypothetical article about an individual matte painting, Galaxy class model). The latter articles could be considered to be about specific "production materials" - but the former are not. They are about effect techniques only. -- Cid Highwind 10:14, October 4, 2011 (UTC) Valid point, I concur, but then I'm starting to think of creating a new generic category for concept articles like this one, of let's say "Production techniques", which could then serve to capture hypothetical future articles like, say "Motion Control Photography", "Prop building" "Costume design" and the like...Sennim 10:37, October 4, 2011 (UTC) :A more generic (super-)category will be necessary if we get more articles of that type - as long as there's only a handful (I couldn't even find a third one yesterday), and all of them fall into the more specific "effects" category, we should use that... -- Cid Highwind 12:42, October 4, 2011 (UTC) ::As for the suggested designation of Category: Star Trek special effects, I don't think we should include Trek in the name, as it's a Trek wiki, after all. --Defiant 13:19, October 4, 2011 (UTC) :::A new category containing this article could also contain Feinberger, Mees panel, Okudagram, and Category:Studio models if it was called Category:Production material. CGI might also work with that name, even though it isn't "material" in the same sense that these were. - 11:25, October 7, 2011 (UTC) ::Since the late 1980s, early 1990s "Special Effects" have been sub-divided into "Special Effects" (on-stage) and "Visual Effects" (post-production), before that everything was heaped together as "Special Effects". So a possible tree would be: "Production material"-> "Effects"-> "Visual Effects" and "Special Effects" Translated to the examples Archduke gives: ::Visual Effects ::*Studio models ::*CGI ::* and yes, Matte Painting ::Special Effects: ::*Feinberger ::*Mees Panel ::*Okudagram ::Just a thought...--Sennim 12:18, October 7, 2011 (UTC) :::That's definitely worth keeping in mind, but I don't think any further sub-division is necessary yet, since we only have five articles and the studio models category.- 21:39, October 7, 2011 (UTC) Possible TNG matte paintings I am not sure about a few TNG matte paintings. They are: * The planet surface with the canyon in * The Custodian in * The planet scene in * The beach scene in * The background planetary scene in Maybe someone could have a look. Tom 21:50, October 25, 2011 (UTC) :It's essentially gobbledy-gook to me (having not watched TNG in ages), but page 72 of cites "the far landscape around the cliffs seen in ... the phaser bore hole of , the cave of , the village vista of and even the inside of the Bussard ramscoop of the nacelle interiors for " as having all been digital matte paintings created by Dan Curry. This would seem to disprove the statement, currently on this page, that there was only one matte painting done for the show's seventh season. --Defiant 15:00, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::Is it possible that the place noting season 7 mattes is differentiating between digital mattes and properly painted ones? -- sulfur 15:08, November 4, 2011 (UTC) :No. It begins, "Images Curry has created in the digital paint box range from the far landscape around the cliffs seen in "Liaisons" to the phaser bore hole," etc. --Defiant 15:38, November 4, 2011 (UTC) ::No. Not the bit you just quoted. The bit on the page about only one matte painting. Perhaps it was sourced from elsewhere, and that place made a point of treating digital mattes separately from non-digital ones. -- sulfur 15:49, November 4, 2011 (UTC) :Oh, right. Sorry for the misunderstanding; I'd assumed that, if it was the page here, you would have looked at it yourself. The passage of this article I referred to doesn't cite its source. Meanwhile, I've looked up Cinefantastique (Vol. 25, No. 6/Vol. 26, No. 1), and that also cites the view of Cambridge University in as being a traditionally illustrated matte painting (as opposed to the digital type) that was created for the seventh season. I'd also be wary of mixing up "mattes" with "matte paintings"; they're quite different, afaik. --Defiant 16:07, November 4, 2011 (UTC) Split rationale This page currently includes a mix of matte paintings and backdrops, so I'm suggesting that the info about the backdrops be moved to a bginfo section of the backdrop page. The backdrops were used on the set during filming whereas the matte paintings were not. -- Defiant (talk) 07:40, April 26, 2018 (UTC) :Support Retract; Sounds like a solid rationale to me, especially since matte paintings and onstage backdrops are two different production assets; Matte paintings are VFX elements for use in post-production, whereas backdrops are SFX elements for actors to interact with during first/second-unit onstage filming -- Sennim (talk) 08:59, April 26, 2018 (UTC) ::Support per comments above. Tom (talk) 09:44, April 26, 2018 (UTC) :::Support. :) --LauraCC (talk) 16:20, May 10, 2018 (UTC) :::: I'd certainly welcome someone (Defiant/Sennim) more versed in the matter to manually create the article in question and then if need be, an admin can back and clean up the aftermath, because I'm really not sure where to start because it's a bit more complicated that just clipping a section and moving it to a new home. --Alan (talk) 14:13, October 3, 2018 (UTC) :Well, to be honest matte paintings are something I've not yet delved into in any measure of thoroughness, so it's still more up in Defiant's alley, so to speak. But your remark got me thinking, so I perused the galleries and I realized that I'm actually not entirely clear what Defiant is referring to. He suggests that there are several backdrops, but the only one that is IMO thus, is this one, which looks like a viz composite, but I'm not sure. However, if he is refering to something like this (the Jefferies tube) then I would actually be enticed to tender an oppose vote as the tube is still a matte panting, inserted in post as a visual enhancement (onset that section would be blue/green screen, see for example this). So, untill further clarification, preferably with some examples, I retract my original above vote, without tendering a new one.--Sennim (talk) 07:25, October 4, 2018 (UTC)